18
- COMMENTS

"The personal is the political" carol hanish - i hope i got the spelling of her name right. or it could be hanisch.
By hats off! - 2/24/2018 5:01:22 AM

Sultan Shahin.

Let me clear first" I am not ashamed" at all for whatever I have said about you.

Very Basic reason, you yourself put your life in public in questionare from with Yoginder Sikand, just remember there is no separate life for public figure if you promote yourself as public figure and than want to live personal life, that is the reason we have hypocrate babas, politician and different type of public figure. Thay say something in public and do personally something else which is you yourself are victim. Just remember that when public figure say saomething or do something they are setting some standards in public(samaj)

Your life is important it is because you promote one set if ideas that is called Isalm on the name of freedom you have achieved from your father.

You are doing knowingly or unknowingly or may very unknowngly Subcounciusly what Zakir Naik had done with Hindus.

On the name of Disclaimer on your website, you are putting whatever suits your Islamic agenda, I am reader of your published article since one and half year and I can see systmatically debunking Hindus in subconscious form.

Just read 13 part of article of Masood Alam on your website "Caste Base discrimination among Muslims" it looks like Hindus are culprit, also there are articles on sufisium that are trying to tell how Hindu learn from Muslims, and there is vice versa it will be bad only.

If you want to verify than there is pattern here on your website:

1) Crtisise Muslim and terrorist and violence attack by Muslim. Which is ok because it is Muslims personal affair.

2)Subcounciusly crtisice Hindus.

3)Subcounciusly prove that all evils among the Muslim in subcontinent is due to Hindus.

This you do on the name of disclaimer and authores own view.

On other hand in your view (public videos on YouTub) you trying to convince audience that loewer strata people adopted Islam because it was not discriminatory, which does not make sense when you have something to blame Hindu, it think it is your own subcouncius Hindu hatred which you tried to charge me as Muslim hatred, otherwise you may be very consistent.

I do not hate Muslims nor Hindus nor Muslims, I hate the belife of one sect is true and superiors and try to promote in various from from different platform to cheat humanity in whole.

About your Agnostic, I think every person pass(((may be other being as well, because we do not know there communication system))) through that stage its like pendulum, my best friend is old age Muslim, and she and her husband still are in state of pendulum when they see injustice in world ,even though they do five time Namaz and she does Parada.

Being agnostic is first sign of questioning God system on earth, it is good sign of love for other fellow human being and other being.

Most of the time agnostic and atheist are more better than people believing in once sext and relgion is Ture, theynserve humanity better than believers, look at Richard Hawkins, Richard Dawkins doing there best to out humans on other plant, look at they our Guy and Agnostic mathematician Alan Turing give first Mordern concept of computers( Muslim guy heaters should not even use computers, because it Alan Turing that gave us computer, watch imitation game movie)

I personally also have been in that agnostic state and remained pendulum of agnostic to believers.

I can debunk many of your decisive nature in public saying on YouTube and in form article but I am not here to prove Hindu ethos are superior, I remain on this website as commentator for my Hindu audience or something that is indirectly hurting Hindu existence as we have only one land and from world point of we are minority which has no place to run.

I am not RSS or Hindu extremist but I and like me all think of our own existence, Abrhamic relgion especially Islam had never given refuge to Hindus.

My duties is to expose people like you that may be doing knowingly, unknowingly or subconsciously unknowingly damaging Hindu existence.

It is the only relgion left in the world that will allow all kind of thought related to god.

Here is glipms of Hindu relgion which I Never believed " A monkey God Hanuman" I learned because of pervert Muslim working with us constantly chasing married Hindu women for his lust" it took me long time to understand why we had monkey God, A kami man can worship other form that is similar to human but not human if he/she really want to be englitment of God. There are many reason but this enough to tell me. We Hindus do not want put women in pards for men weakness but find the better solution in other form by diverting the same mind and make as purée as other, and God purity. The way can be different depend on the human character.

I want to preserve this ethos which Islam and Abrhamic relgion had finished.

Let me more honest with you, we non-Muslim(((a Muslim negative form I'd not believing Islam)))) feel mockery when you talk of pluralism and "la ikraha fid Eden" because if that was the case your paigmaber would not have break all idols and hijacked the Mecca" how will you justify your paigmaber this act with your "la ikraha fid deen" I will see overall behaviour and picture of Islam and your paigmaber that had done with humans not one tailored cut worsen of yours.

I do have respect for your paigamber for certain acts but not for all as per history propgated by Muslims ( may be they have changed to suit for there rule which is none of my business, my business effect on us Hindus due to that history)

I will again say I am not Ashamed about saying your personal life which you had made public to gain certain points. Any way you should not be feel deeply personally when you Muslims created & propagated personally life of your paigamber on name of Hadees after his death without his permission. It will be better if you and other Muslims just feelm ashamed of saying paigamber life publicly.

Jai Human, monkey God for today.

By Aayina - 2/23/2018 6:02:23 PM

Requiring one's spouse to convert to one's religion is barbaric and shows disrespect for one's spouse.

In a mixed marriage, children should be either exposed to both religions or to neither religion.

In any case, religious transmission to children should exclude transmission of prejudice, intolerance, segregationist tendencies and assumptions of superiority of one religion over others.

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/18/2018 1:08:51 PM

Aayina, you should be ashamed of
yourself for bringing my personal life into the comment box. That is none of your
business.

However, now that you have and if my
memory is serving me right, this is perhaps the second or third time, I
must explain for the benefit of neutral readers.

I never advertised my marital life.
However, if somebody asks me or makes allegations of personal nature, I have to
state the facts. When I was sacked from the editorship of a magazine being run
by the "secular" Muslim leadership of the country for not having
converted my wife even after 12 years of marriage, the media got wind of it and
asked me questions. I told them what had happened. I had to. Then the Delhi Union of Journalists
of which I was a member went to court, to secure justice for me, as I had not been
paid my salary even for the month in which I had been sacked, not to speak
of the additional six months for which I should have been paid as per then government rules for such situations. The managing director Mr. Yunus Dehlavi deployed his
lawyer, incidentally from the RSS stable, to contest the case. After ten years,
in which the judge did not even heard me once, the DUJ lawyer stopped informing me of the dates. I stopped going to court every
second/third month. The case got dismissed.

This was the Islam of such luminaries like
Messrs. Salman Khurshid, Late Syed Hamid, A M Khusro, Kamal Farooqi and Yunus
Dehlavi, to which they wanted me to convert my wife. The Islam that I know of
asks employers to pay their employees before the sweat of their brows have
dried, and doesn't force anyone to convert, allows Muslims to marry any one from any faith, without requiring either of them them to convert. In my understanding of Islam, all human beings are ahl-e-kitab, as they have all received prophets of God.

However, the point is I did not
advertise all this. My employers didn’t even know that I had not converted my
wife for 13/14 months that I worked for them because I saw no reason to
advertise this. However, things happened. My marriage to a Hindu girl was no secret. I had faced Hindu
goons from my area in Delhi at one time who gheraoed my house for weeks with
the help of the local SHO, who used to harass my wife in my absence, until the
DCP intervened and rescued me and my wife?

This was known to many people. So,
somebody told my employers and they immediately scheduled a breakfast meeting of
the Board and asked me to convert her. As I read la ikraha fid Deen to
them, and told them that Hindus are ahl-e-kitab, like all other nations of the world
who have received prophets of Islam and have books of revelations, and we are
allowed even by orthodox Islam to have the most intimate relations with them, the
meeting broke and I was sacked the same day. I did not issue a press release to
advertise my problems or the nature of my marital life. It would be absurd to
do so.

As for my children, they are free to
choose their religion. I fought with my father as a young boy for my right to
choose my religion. I objected to his waking me up every morning for morning
prayers to a God I did not know and could not know at that stage in my life. As
a rational Maulvi, that he thankfully was, he agreed and accepted my promise
that when I grow up I would study all religions and choose mine or not choose
any if that’s what I feel.

I don’t think religion or philosophy of
life is something that can be inherited. How can then I possibly ask my
children to adopt my present religion. Like any thinking human being who is constantly learning new things and growing, I may change my own views on any subject tomorrow. So how can I ask any one else, much less my own children, to accept my present views as the Gospel truth. I was an agnostic for decades of my conscious
life. God blessed me with faith.

However, I have no right to share with you and make
public what my freethinking children think about religion and even about shamelessness
of people like you who would force me to talk about my personal life
experiences. [Of course, people write autobiographies and share their life
experiences. But that should be their choice.}

I
respect my children’s right to choose their life and their religion or
philosophy of life or not choose anything, which is also a choice. I fought for
my own rights to choose or not choose any religion as a young person and I
continue to fight for every human’s right to choose.

Much of what is wrong with the world is
because religion has become hereditary. Had you been born in a fundamentalist, obscurantist,
intolerant, exclusivist Muslim family, you would have probably been a shameless,
intolerant Muslim now, spewing hatred for Hindus. Start thinking for yourself,
maybe you will come out of the intense hatred of Muslims, particularly moderate,
liberal, progressive Muslims that informs your life and present thinking. You
have inherited this hate from the society in which you have lived since you were
born. Anyone able to think for himself can perhaps never be so full of hatred
for fellow human beings, from whichever religion or caste or colour or community.

By Sultan Shahin - 2/18/2018 7:34:41 AM

Addition to Hatts off.
Do even non-Muslim majority but Muslim dominated minority Areas in non-Muslims countries have rights to convert to Muslims.
Swami shrdhanad was killed because of this.
Openly practise hypocrisy is standard of Muslims nowadays.
Look at the Sultan Shanin, he advertise himself that I did not convert my my wife but he made sure his kids are Muslims.
By Aayina - 2/17/2018 1:55:43 PM

do the minorities in an islamic nation have the right to preach and convert the momeen to polytheism?
By hats off! - 2/17/2018 6:09:31 AM

Thank you Ghaus Siddiqi sahab, I want to now something more on this topic, though the information related to this topic is widely available on internet but which is correct is not clear to me so i want to know from you but i am engaged in some importnat wrok . after finish i will contact you.
By Shahzad - 2/17/2018 3:56:47 AM

Dear shahzad, you can also look at the following characterization to understand the areas covered in the classical study of the Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws).

Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws) has four main sections of study and their sub-sections:

You can also study the components of Islamic Law; (1) The lawgiver (hakim), (2) the law (hukm) derived either of wahi jali or wahi khafi, (3) the objectives of law (mahkum bihi) and (4) the subjects of law (mahkum alaihi) that is those to whom the law applies or persons.

If you study all the areas of Science of Islamic laws and the components of Islamic law, you shall have a better understanding, facing any Islamic issue revolving around the relative subjects.

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/14/2018 11:20:16 PM

Dear Shahbaz,

There was nothing
like confusing statement in MY previous comment. What I wrote therein is
unanimously accepted view among Islamic scholars.

I said, the ‘Hukm’
(Islamic rule/legal value/ruling) is not the revealed Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value
which is established and deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty.

A famous Islamic
scholar writes in his book “Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam”,

ان الحكم المصطلح ما ثبت بالخطاب
لا هو

In Islamic
terminology, Hukm [Islamic ruling/law/rule] is not the revealed words [of
Allah] but it is proved and deduced from the revealed speech [of Allah].

The same definition can be
searched in Sharh Jamu’l jawami’ by Imam Jalaluddin al Mahalli [well known for
the exegesis of the Holy Qur’an which was later completed by his renowned
student al Hafiz Jalaluddin al Suyuti and was known worldwide as Tafsir al
Jalalayn!], Sharhul Mukhtasar by Qazi Al-'Iji, 'Adud al-Din, Sharhul Minhaj by
Asnawi, Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam by Amidi etc. Fazil Qarabaghi, Allama Bihari,
Allama Qannauji and numerous Islamic scholars have adopted the same view.By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/8/2018 10:54:11 PM

Ghaus sb,

I got confused when you
said, “It should also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the
Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value which is established and
deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty”.

Please give evidence for
what you say

By Shahbaz - 2/8/2018 9:48:00 PM

Dear Shahbaz
sahib,

In the
modern Western terminology, what is known as ‘Law’ is recognized as ‘Ruling’
(Hukm) in Islamic terminology.

In western
terminology what is known as “Legal Science” is recognized as Ilm al-Ahkam or ‘Al-Fiqh’
(Science of Islamic Laws) in Islamic terminology.

It is
incorrect to translate ‘Law’ as ‘Fiqh’. Al-Fiqh is not Law. But rather it is “Science
of Islamic Laws”.

In Western
terminology what is known as Jurisprudence is recognized as Usul al-Fiqh
(Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) in Islamic terminology.

Some people
have wrongly used Islamic Sharia and Islamic law to mean the same thing. The fact
is that Shariat is a whole and Islamic Law is a part of it.

If you
study the definition of ‘Law’ in the writings of the western scholars, you will
find a huge difference among them. Each of them has differently defined ‘Law’.

Please
read the definitions of ‘Law’ made by St. Thomas, Richard Hooker, Immanuel
Kant, Savigny, Friedrich Engels, Black Stone, John Austin, Holland, Sir Fedrick
Polloc, Sidney Hartland, Professor G. C. Lee and Salmond etc, you will find
difference. Robson W.A has rightly said, “It is difficult to define law in a
satisfactory manner, it is still harder to find the beginnings of it. The origins
of law are shrouded in obscurity and are, perhaps, impossible to discover”. The
western scholars made their efforts in defining ‘Law’ after playing ‘trial-and-error’
activities.

In his book “The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam, page 17”, Dr. Riyaz ul Hasan Gilani says “It is possible
for God Almighty alone to know with precision what rules of conduct are most
expedient for the human beings in this world. He therefore blessed the human
beings with the divine Revelation and gave them the body of rules of conduct
which are most suitable for the maximum number in this world. The conformity to
those rules causes good effect (the Heaven) in the Hereafter, while the
non-conformity leads to bad results (the Hell)”. (End of quote)

I remember
one Quranic verse which is translated into English as, “So do they wish a
judgement of ignorance? And whose judgement is better than that of Allah, for
the people who are certain? (5:50)

Cicero
says, “Law is neither contrived nor decreed by man; it is an eternal principle
which rules the whole universe, commanding what is right and prohibiting what
is wrong. Hence law is no mere artefact but is the divine reason bestowed by
the gods on the human race”.

One
western scholars says, “In Islam, the most conspicuous fact about Muhammad
(peace be upon him) is that he was not merely a divine prophet but also a
temporal ruler who governed, judged, punished and legislated. After the great
flight in A.D. 622 to Madina, when Muhammad (peace be upon him) acquired
political power he was sovereign as well as Divine prophet, but only sovereign
because of his prophetic office. The mosque was his council-chamber and hall of
audience; the Friday sermon his opportunity for declarations of policy and when
he uttered his most far-reaching injunctions he spoke as the very mouthpiece of
the deity”

As for
the Islamic terminology of ‘Hukm’ (Islamic Ruling or Law), the Islamic scholars
belonging to various schools of thought, unanimously agree upon its definition.
As per the Science of Islamic Laws (al-fiqh al-Islami), the definition of ‘hukm’
(translated in English ‘Ruling’ or ‘Law’) is universal and unchangeable. What is
Islamic Hukm (Law/Ruling) is one upon which all the scholars unanimously agree.
What is Ruling and what is not Ruling is another subject and hence should not
be confused with the unanimous definition of ‘Hukm’ (Ruling/Law).

In Arabic
Islamic Ruling or Islamic Law is defined as;

الحكم خطاب
الله المتعلق بأفعال المكلفين بالاقتضاء او التخيير او الوضع

Translation:
Law (hukm) is that which is established by a communication (khitab) from Allah
Almighty with reference to men’s acts, expressive either of demand or indifference
on His part, or being merely declaratory”.

It should
also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the Arabic word of Allah
Almighty but is that legal value which is established and deduced from the
revealed words of Allah Almighty. The main source of Islamic
hukm/Law/ruling/rule is the holy Quran and next to it is Sunnah and then Ijma
qati’, as these sources are ways of knowing the will of Allah Almighty on many
accounts.

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/8/2018 12:08:46 AM

Ghaus sb,

what is law, fiqh, jurisprudence, hukm? is there any mutually agreed definition in Islam?

By Shahzad - 2/7/2018 10:19:43 PM

Ma Sha Allah. Very fine and well researched article.

May Allah save you from the bigoted commentators

By Abidi Zafar - 1/28/2018 6:13:04 PM

Gulam Mouyddin Muslims living in wester countries and in India are busy in putting pressure to have exclusive and different laws for Muslims.

Muslims does not allowed to use rational mind, because rational mind works on logic, can't you see on this find trolling against rational mind.

Islam is like virus if it is treated by whabisim or Tablige Jamat, than mind once get infected it has no anti-dote, than hypocrisy is only left out, you can see in the articles on this website, on one hand talk of universalism and on other hand constantly try to prove Quran is the only best book.

By Aayina - 1/20/2018 2:49:58 AM

Articale itself is proof of the Muslim superiority, and supremacy has to be main source of law and how to treat than non-Muslims.

Do Pagan world had separate law for Jews.

Pagan of Arab were good respectful of others belife.

Muhmmad paigmaber Hijacked the Mecca from the peace loving Meccan, where they were respecting each other, no concept of minority, God is Punishing Muslims for what their paigmaber and they did with others belife.

This all type of articles fake harmony and cannot be trusted when their own paigmaber break the and stone others place by force.

By Aayina - 1/13/2018 11:31:47 AM

Islam upholds ill treatment to dimmit s.“Whoever kills a peaceful non-Muslim living in minority or under Muslim-governed country [Mu'ahad] with no justification, Allah will forbid Paradise to him.” (Sunan Nasai, Book 45, Chapter “Seriousness of killing the Mua’hid”, Hadith 42)-------But Allah would not put him into Hell as well.Is it ? These verses are highly ambiguous.Islam does not preach a form of government .the death of MOHamed,created a problem how find a new king ? There is no answer. It is the power of Sword/Gun which decides who is the next King.Khalifa I Baubakkar managed to become the King by obstinate negotiation. Fathima , the daughter of Prophet Mohammed was persecuted for not supporting Abubakkar,she lost her life due to the rude behaviour of Umar Khalifa II. Umar also became the King by threatening and Uthuman became the King after alot of deliberation. Ground is made to drench with Human Blood.Still there is no answer to that question.Islam is nothing but euphemism for coarse Arabian culture that existed 1400 years ago.which allows no innovations.
By dr.A.Anburaj - 1/10/2018 1:46:34 AM

The article takes the bigoted view of the theologians and is therefore hopelessly confused and full of contradictions. For example, if only defensive war is permitted, why do you need a treaty with your minorities to live in peace with them? You need all the people to abide by the constitution and live together as a single nation or as Ummat-e-Wahida.

First, war is not only permitted but ordained against the oppressors. It must be preceded by negotiations and all acts of diplomacy to resolve issues failing which war may be resorted to, if that is the only way left to end oppression and injustice. Is such war offensive or defensive? It does not matter what it is. That is not important. What is important is that oppression must be ended.

Why was permission to fight not given while the Prophet was in Mecca? This has nothing to do with numbers. The Quran does not promote civil war or a situation where the leader is unable to protect his people. Only a ruler with territory under his control can protect the territory and the people residing in his territory. He can also fight only with the help of people under his control or with allies who are also such rulers with a territory under their control. The verses regarding fighting were inapplicable to the Muslims who continued to reside in Mecca after the Prophet’s migration and applied only to those under his political authority. War is permitted but not acts against one’s own government. The Prophet owed no responsibility of protection to the Muslims who continued to live in Mecca and these Muslims were expected to migrate to Medina and join the Prophet, but not expected to remain in Mecca and indulge in acts of aggression.

There is an unqualified command of Allah “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. A Muslim government must therefore remain secular in all matters of governance. The Muslims and the non-Muslims do not form separate nations, but are a single nation, or Ummat-e-Wahida. Treaties are with equals. The Minorities with their weak numbers, are not equals to be considered as a separate nation, but must be protected and treated as equals and as part of a single nation. If there is any discrimination at all, it must be positive discrimination to ensure that they are never treated unjustly. For example, reservations for the minorities is a safeguard against hidden discrimination against them.

There is no command to fight the non-Muslims nor is the Quran vague or ambiguous about the justification for waging war. There is only one cause for which fighting is permitted/ordained and that is to end oppression of any kind, against any oppressor, to protect any oppressed. The faith professed by the oppressor/oppressed is immaterial.

(4:75) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

(76) The Amanu fight in the cause of Allah, and the kafaru Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

The only cause of Allah for which fighting is permitted, is to end oppression and anybody who is fighting for such a cause, is “Amanu” irrespective of the faith they profess, and the oppressor is “kafaru” irrespective of the faith they profess. The bigots, by reserving kafaru for non-Muslims and Amanu for the Muslims, distort the clear message of the Quran. The Quran does use kafaru/kafirin for the believers as well, and Amanu are not Muslims alone, but all those who satisfy the following criteria:

(2:112) Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

In the context of war, they who fight for a just cause are fighting in the cause of Allah, and are therefore the Muminun, and the oppressors are the Kafirun.

The Ayats of Allah outside of the Quran

The Ayats or the Signs of Allah are not only in the Books of Scriptures but also in the natural phenomena that the Quran constantly points out to. It is also in the happenings around us or in the events that take place around us. For example:

(2:246) Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? they said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if you were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?"

(2:251) By Allah´s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.

(252) These are the Signs of Allah: we rehearse them to thee in truth: verily Thou art one of the messengers.

The Ayat of Allah here is the defeat of a powerful enemy who were the oppressors and the fact that Allah checks one set of people by means of another. The faith professed by the people used by Allah to check the oppressor and the faith professed by the oppressor are immaterial in these Ayats. Now let us look at another powerful Ayat and the very important lesson it teaches us.

The Indian army fought against Pakistan’s army in 1971 and defeated them liberating Bangladesh. Without doubt, the Pakistan Army was the oppressor which practiced great oppression on the people of Bangladesh and the Indian army was used by Allah to check them.

وَلَن يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا

(4:141) ….And never will Allah grant to the Kafirin a way (to triumph) over the Mominin.

We have an Ayat of Allah in the defeat of the Pakistani army who were oppressors by the Indian Army which went to help the oppressed and an Ayat of the Quran which says the Mominin will always triumph over the Kafirin. In this situation, the Indian army which went to help an oppressed people and fight an oppressor are the Mominin and the oppressing Pakistani army the Kafirin. If there is difficulty in accepting that the Indian Army were the momineen because their objective may not have been very pure, then the Pakistan army may be considered as the worst in kufr because of which they suffered the humiliating defeat. Allah also says in Al-Hajj 22:40 that He checks one set of people with another.

The Kafirin suffered a humiliating defeat.

This event clearly demonstrates the meaning of Momin and Kafir in a situation where the battle is between those who uphold what is right and the oppressors. The event is an Ayat of Allah outside of the Quran which must be reconciled with Ayat 4:141 from the Quran, to take the correct meaning that an oppressor is a kafir no matter what faith he professes and those who fight to end oppression, fight in the cause of Allah and are the Momineen in the limited context of the battle.

The bigoted theologians make a big deal out of making a distinction between those who recite the kalima and those who don’t. The Message of the Quran is far more nuanced and is from the Lord of all of us. The God of Islam is not the parochial god of the theologians.

By Naseer Ahmed - 1/10/2018 12:11:45 AM

Governments must guarantee equal rights and equal protections to all citizens. Governments must be religion-blind.

Muslims who enjoy equal citizenship rights in countries such as India and the United States must consider it their duty to pressure Muslim-majority countries to grant equal rights and equal protections to their religious and ethnic minorities.